True Self

I have heard several individuals, particularly Westel, answer “Because with them I can be my true self,” when asked how they knew that they were in love with someone. I find this statement puzzling. Are we not ourselves not matter who we are with? Westel could not transform into Kruega, or Whiteclaw, for example. But it is the “True” part that I wish to examine here.

Perhaps, I thought, the better word would be “Unguarded.” Being intimately comfortable with someone, one might allow behaviors considered more light-hearted, and vulnerable. But there is an issue with this as well. Even under these conditions, one would not wish to offend their beloved with childish or wild, barbaric manners. A filter on one’s behavior yet exists.

So, what about “Selective.” The way one acts around one’s beloved is exclusive to them, and is not seen around one’s other acquaintances. For example, affection is applied to one’s lover when it would not be with say, one’s commander. At this, we have journeyed far from “True.” Because this implies that one is not genuine with either the beloved, or the rest of the world. But is that so? Could both behaviors be genuine?

I believe so. “True self,” is far too problematic and romantic. The traits one exhibits to a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, and a lover are different. Some may be tailored and manipulated for the situation, or as social circumstances dictate. The emotions behind these interactions can be sincere. Or they can be the opposite out of necessity to survive.

Because of this, I argue that there is no “True Self,” only the self of the moment. Bound by duty, love, and society, and so on.